A federal appeals court decision on gay marriage last week offers hope the country is on track to fully eliminate one of the great inequities of our time: the legal barriers to marriage equality.The 9th District Court of Appeals decision, which struck down a California ban on same-sex marriage, is in many ways modest in scope and ambition.It doesn't claim a broad constitutional ri...

The people of California have voted twice on gay marriage, the last time in 2008. They have rejected it both times. Is the Post now coming out against democratic governance? Is a citizen's voice irrelevant? Is the Post now going to run a series of articles on the meaning of marriage in Western civilization? Why do two black-robed elites get to decide this issue?

If the law of the land, according to the Ninth Circuit, is that denying marriage rights to gays is unconstitutional, then civil unions would also be unconstitutional, as they fail to give the name marriage to same-sex unions. Denial of the name "marriage" was a substantial issue in the ruling, as California permits "domestic partnerships" but not "marriage" for same-sex couples. In other words, "civil unions" would unfairly deny same-sex couples the designation "marriage."

So we either give full marriage rights to gays or we don't. I suspect "civil unions" would not be acceptable to the Ninth Circuit, assuming the decision stands.

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? What is not said in the Constitution should be left to the states or slavery would not have been legal before the Civil War according to the "catch-all" equal protection clause. Yes, a separate ammendment (13th) after a long war was necessary to dissolve slavery. Where is the ammendment push to include gay marriage in the Constitution? The court has spun gold from straw regarding this ruling.

profmitchell wrote:The people of California have voted twice on gay marriage, the last time in 2008. They have rejected it both times. Is the Post now coming out against democratic governance? Is a citizen's voice irrelevant? Is the Post now going to run a series of articles on the meaning of marriage in Western civilization? Why do two black-robed elites get to decide this issue?

Short answer: on issues such as civil rights, the answer is YES.

The mob shouldn't get to vote on rights, because this is not a democracy. Time to get over it: the "elites" get to interpret law and overturn such atrocities as allowing the mob to vote on rights.

CarpaDM wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? What is not said in the Constitution should be left to the states or slavery would not have been legal before the Civil War according to the equal protection clause. Yes, an ammendment after a long war was necessary to dissolve slavery. Where is the ammendment push to include gay marriage? The court has spun gold from straw regarding this ruling.

First of all, slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, enacted in 1865 at the close of the Civil War. The equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868, also after the Civil War. Secondly, the Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about marriage. Instead, it broadly guarantees equal treatment of everyone. Since you obviously didn't bother to look it up, here's the relevant text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

CarpaDM wrote:Where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? What is not said in the Constitution should be left to the states or slavery would not have been legal before the Civil War according to the equal protection clause. Yes, an ammendment after a long war was necessary to dissolve slavery. Where is the ammendment push to include gay marriage? The court has spun gold from straw regarding this ruling.

First of all, slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, enacted in 1865 at the close of the Civil War. The equal protection clause is in the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in 1868, also after the Civil War. Secondly, the Constitution doesn't specifically say anything about marriage. Instead, it broadly guarantees equal treatment of everyone. Since you obviously didn't bother to look it up, here's the relevant text of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to that, 9-year olds can marry and persons can marry beasts?

CarpaDM wrote:According to that, 9-year olds can marry and persons can marry beasts?

LOL. I love it when those that oppose justice fling out this sort of stupid red herring fallacy.

Fail.

Red herring? Then why did we need to follow the 13th ammendment with the 14th (equal protection clause) if the abolition of salvery can be used in the 14th? Isn't that being redundant? The 14th ammendment was needed so slaves can travel freely from one state to another. It has nothing to do with gay marriage.

What sort of logic would you use to uphold that the 14th ammendment doesn't apply in this case (9-year olds)? Would you make a state law against it? If so, define "person" as it applies in the 14th ammendment. I thought so, states do make laws against such behavior.

Progressive and Liberals make up about 20 to 30 % of the voters. However, they have captured the Federal judiciary, some State judiciaries, the Federal bureaucracy, many state bureaucracies, many public school systems, major universities, major media outlets, Hollywood, etc. Thus, we have a minority oppressing the majority. Abraham Lincoln, as a good attorney, warned of the danger to our liberty and the ability of the people rule their own lives in 1861. Abraham Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address,

...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

Former Senator Moynihan eloquently explained Liberals and Progressives goal as one of Defining Deviancy Down. Liberals and Progressives seek to enact laws, publish regulations or, easier still, use the courts in an attempt to legitimize decadence and deviancy as new norms. These include: Intergenerational Intimacy i.e. child molestation, Death with Dignity (Kevorkian-style assisted suicide for insane people), Waco, Texas Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood teaching girls as young as 10 that abortion can be a positive experience, and Drug Users Are Heroes because drugs change brain chemistry i.e., label people who make the conscious decision to take drugs, knowing it is illegal as heroes etc. Obviously, people holding to Bible teachings will object to these long term plans and actions by the courts, bureaucracy, or Hollywood.

The Declaration of Independence states,

...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ??? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Normal, non-deviant, non-decadent people seek to organize a government on such principles as to them seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Couger wrote:Everybody has a right to their opinion. Mine on this subject is marriage is between a man and a woman. The U. S. and each state Constitution should say exactly that.

Sure, everybody does indeed have the right to their opinion. You say that, yet you then immediately claim the law of the land should be written to uphold only your opinion, excluding those of many others. You want marriage to be only between members of the opposite sex? Fine, then marry a member of the opposite sex. But what business is it of yours who other people decide to marry? It doesn't affect you.

Proposition 8 was the reaction of the people of California to their Supreme Court ruling for same-sex marriage on State Constitutional grounds. Then a sympathetic district court judge, single-handedly, overturned the will of the people of California (that marriage be defined as that between a man and a woman), and now the POST "rejoices" that 2 of 3 Federal Circuit Court judges affirmed that decision.

There exists a traditional view of "normalcy" that reflects traditional morals and ethics, and in many cases, this normalcy is affirmed and maintained through codified philosophy or religion. Changes to the view of normalcy is resisted because a new salvation is being preached by judges, editorial writers and the politically correct, and is found in the doctrine of toleration...."if it feels good, do it, and who are we to judge?" Deviancy has been flipped and is now the failure to tolerate and accept as normal what was considered intolerable and not normal. Homophobia is an invented term that is applied to anyone not accepting or tolerating or celebrating what they call a perversion. Hater is a label given anyone not marching to the beat of the drum in a gay pride parade. ...and there is no middle ground, you either celebrate it or hate it. What if it just doesn't sound or look normal?

The Ninth Court of Appeals has the distinction of being the circuit court most often overturned court in the land because it has been populated with loons with flawed legal reasoning. What they have ruled as unconstitution has been affirmed as constitutional and vice-versa. Where can one read the minority opinion and his reasoning behind rejecting the unconstitutional argument? Is he the loon or are the other two?

Folks are tired of a few activist judges legislating their view of morality and inflecting their opinion on the majority. As they say, the jury is still out on whether same sex marriage shall be the law of the land. And if it does, will it ever erase depression, guilt and shame?

Progressive and Liberals make up about 20 to 30 % of the voters. However, they have captured the Federal judiciary, some State judiciaries, the Federal bureaucracy, many state bureaucracies, many public school systems, major universities, major media outlets, Hollywood, etc. Thus, we have a minority oppressing the majority. Abraham Lincoln, as a good attorney, warned of the danger to our liberty and the ability of the people rule their own lives in 1861. Abraham Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address,

...the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

Former Senator Moynihan eloquently explained Liberals and Progressives goal as one of Defining Deviancy Down. Liberals and Progressives seek to enact laws, publish regulations or, easier still, use the courts in an attempt to legitimize decadence and deviancy as new norms. These include: Intergenerational Intimacy i.e. child molestation, Death with Dignity (Kevorkian-style assisted suicide for insane people), Waco, Texas Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood teaching girls as young as 10 that abortion can be a positive experience, and Drug Users Are Heroes because drugs change brain chemistry i.e., label people who make the conscious decision to take drugs, knowing it is illegal as heroes etc. Obviously, people holding to Bible teachings will object to these long term plans and actions by the courts, bureaucracy, or Hollywood.

The Declaration of Independence states,

...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ??? That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Normal, non-deviant, non-decadent people seek to organize a government on such principles as to them seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

This court decision is a judicial dictatorship!

Regards,

Airborne All The Way

LOL.

Let me make sure I have this inversion of reality right: in your mind, NOT being able to impose superstitious and irrelevant nonsense on others == "judicial dictatorship".

Viewed in light of this upside-down view of the world, the far right thinking there is a "war on xmas/xtianity" is sort of understandable. Wrong, but understandable.